Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

What a Difference a CFA Makes! Part Two.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on September 3, 2013

For those of us interested in actual truth, until today, we were still where we started; the only allegations which have seen the light of day – Jimmy Savile’s niece, now the subject of 11 signed statements to Police calling her a liar, the Duncroft girls with their forged letter and supporting cast of utter liars such as Bebe Roberts, even Police Officers reporting to Yewtree have been shown to spout nonsense – all that remains are the unpublicised allegations and in those we ‘must believe’ for the BBC is about to give each one of the ’Allegator victims’ £33,000 a piece of licence fee payer’s monies rather than risk traumatising them by actually subjecting their claims to the harsh light of day….I spoke yesterday of the risk free environment in which those claims for ‘compo’ were being made, and the financial penalties that lay in the path of any corporate entity that might be tempted to try to defend the claims.

Let us look now at some of the unpublicised claims, shall we? I am, as ever, interested in those who were in the vanguard of the ‘me too’ multiple claims made by those who watched the dreadful Exposure programme. At the time of broadcast, these comprised a group of girls connected to Duncroft, and one lady who was a member of Jimmy’s fan club. They were the people ‘exhaustively’ investigated by the Levitt report to see whether the claims that Savile ‘could have been stopped’ in 2007, were it not for the reluctant CPS to press charges, were true. Without those claims, and the forged letter in the possession of Fiona Scott-Johnstone claiming that Savile was not charged because he was ‘too old and frail’, the present ‘Savilisation’ of our media would never have occurred. Such frail foundations.

First up we have Miss ‘A’. (I will stick to the labels given by Alison Levitt to save you scrambling your brains with alphabet soup). Alison Levitt didn’t actually ‘interrogate’ the four witnesses she physically met, she merely showed them what they had said in 2007 and invited them to comment if they wished to change anything.

Miss ‘A’, in 2007, had told the police that she was a member of Jimmy Savile’s fan club. In 1968 she had seen him on television saying that he needed a holiday and asking if anyone could put him up. She was 20 years old at the time. She wrote to him offering her Mother’s B & B as a suitable venue for his proposed holiday. Months later she received a reply from a member of his staff declining the offer. Two years later, now married and aged 22, Savile was appearing at her local town hall. Whether she had written to him again, or whether an efficient fan club secretary had remembered her previous letter is not known, but Savile’s Rolls Royce and chauffeur was despatched to her home address to see if she would like to see Savile ‘live’. Her husband encouraged her to go – although curiously doesn’t seem to have accompanied her.

Now armed with a CFA and ATE agreement and represented by the top personal injury lawyers Russell Jones and Walker, this account has become ’2 years later claimant was told SJS (Savile) was in Worthing and wanted to see her’. She has also now become ‘approximately aged 19‘ at this date….

She must have been very excited to arrive at this crowded live venue in Savile’s own Rolls Royce because ‘the next thing she remembered’ (in 2007) was not the show, nor the crowds, but Savile’s arm around her leading her to his caravan parked outside the Town Hall. The account to the High Court in pursuit of civil damages now says ‘SJS urgently put his arm around C and urgently took her to his caravan’. No mention of the very public place where the caravan was alleged (in 2007) to be parked.

In 2007 there was no mention of a locked door, but now Miss ‘A’ remembers that ‘SJS locked the door’ and said he ‘would like to lock claimant in his cupboard and take her with him’. In 2007 he had apparently said ‘you are lovely; I’d like to lock you up in a cupboard and you’d be with me all the time’. In 2007 he also said he’d like to buy the house next door to her, and then he’d be happy all the time.

However, Savile is not so loquacious with the CFA effect applied; now he ‘pounced on’ her, with her on ‘her back and him on top‘. Conjures up a grim picture, doesn’t it – back in 2007 he was ‘lying beside her‘ paying her compliments. The detail of him allegedly putting her hand on his crotch remains the same, but he is no longer fondling her breasts over her clothing as he allegedly was in 2007, now he has ‘put his hand up her skirt‘. The rather touching detail from 2007 of Savile asking her if she was on the pill, and her reply that ‘she didn’t do that sort of thing’ has turned into ‘SJS shouted at her and asked if she was on the contraceptive pill’. At least she still agrees that Savile lost interest in sexual activity with this fully adult woman once he knew that pregnancy might be a possible complication. There is no mention now of that other touching detail; Savile giving her a crucifix with a good luck charm attached – something she still carried with her in 2007 – or ensuring that she had the bus fare to get home again. I know that memories can be fallible following ‘child’ abuse – but surely things you remember saying to the police in 2007 should still be there following a TV programme in 2012?

Miss ‘A’ would now, 42 years later, like the High Court to award damages for ‘injury, including psychological injury’. Her solicitors propose to obtain a medical report to confirm that she has been thus injured – for the purpose of lodging the claim, they only have her assessment that she was…

Russell, Jones and Walker are also representing one of the more fascinating of the Duncroft claims. I can’t name her, but have reason to suspect that she is the same individual called Miss ‘G’ by Alison Levitt. It is difficult to tell, because as Levitt belatedly admitted, she was unaware when interviewing Miss ‘G’ that Miss ‘G’ had already appeared on one of the TV programmes telling a far more exotic account to camera than the one she later vouchsafed in the more sober surroundings of an interview with Alison Levitt QC….I shall call her Miss ‘G’ for the purpose of examining the claim of Russell, Jones and Walkers ‘other’ client.

Miss ‘G’ is alleging that aged 14 Savile took her to an ‘outbuilding’ in the grounds of Duncroft. An ‘outbuilding’ eh? Are you getting visions of spiders webs, discarded paint cans, rusty tools and possibly the remains of the gardener’s bottle of whisky? I suspect you are intended to – it sounds horrific. This outbuilding had a name. Not the Hanoi Hilton, nor the Black Hole of Calcutta – it was known as Norman Lodge! I shall allow a short pause at this point for previous residents of Duncroft to stop laughing and compose themselves.

Yes, the ‘outbuilding’ that he allegedly took this 14-year-old girl to, was the very same modern two storey, purpose-built hostel for working girls aged over 16 that those of us who know what we are talking about, as opposed to the credulous army of lawyers who will be reading these claims, know perfectly well that no 14-year-old from Duncroft would ever have been given unfettered access to. That accommodation the other side of the grounds where the working girls kept their clothes, make-up, cigarettes, spare change and all the other things we would dearly have loved to get our hands on. Not only that, but he allegedly removed this 14 year-old from the locked facility (who unlocked the door?)of Duncroft to the wonderland of Norman Lodge for the purposes of ‘making a phone call to her sister as sister was a fan’.

This is risible nonsense on stilts with its eyes popping out. I have great difficulty in believing that Ruth Cole, Bridie Keenan or Margaret Jones would have reacted with anything other than a derisory snort at the suggestion that any 14 year-old girl be allowed to make an unsupervised phone call from one of the many telephones inside Duncroft on the basis of ‘my sister is a fan of this visitor’, but will allow for the unlikely occurrence that they might have weakened sufficiently to allow a supervised phone call from inside Duncroft – but unlock the door so you could go swanning over to Norman Lodge on your own with a male visitor?

A visitor who then put ‘his hand up our claimants blouse, and pushed his other hand hard into her trousers’. And when our claimant returned from swanning around this outbuilding Norman Lodge and told the staff what had occurred she was then ‘confined to her room for the night’ (how did the other girls in her dormitory get to bed that night if she was ‘confined’ in her room, we didn’t have single rooms?) and had all her privileges removed. Naturally she is also claiming to have suffered psychological damage as a result of this ‘trip to an outbuilding’. Not that her solicitor had actually expended any money on getting a Doctor to confirm this at the time of lodging her claim.

Miss ‘G’ claimed to Levitt that she was 17 and resident in Norman Lodge and had been asked to make Savile a cup of tea by Ms Jones. She claimed that Savile had asked her to ‘give him a blow job’ in return for a job at Stoke Mandeville as a nurse (she was allegedly training to be a nurse at the time). She refused to do so. What Alison Levitt was unaware of was the Ms ‘G’ had already burst onto our television screens making considerably more lurid allegations than ‘indecent suggestion’.

Remember I asked you yesterday to keep the sad history of Mary Bell (I am not saying that Ms ‘G’ was Mary Bell – she wasn’t) in mind as indicative of the sort of girls that MIND were asking Duncroft to educate and keep safe – and the public safe from? And ask yourself again how likely you think this tale of the wandering 14-year-old is.

She alleges she reported this heinous incident to the staff but no action was taken – I hope she is alleging that it was to one of the members of staff now deceased, otherwise Karin Ward will not be the only person getting sued for malicious falsehood. The surviving members of staff are pretty damn angry.

A few more writs for slander and malicious falsehood might just see an end to the Savilisation of our media.

*Oh, there are more, I shall be serving Ms Beef Biriani next, but I’ve had enough for the day. I’m having a hard time with some anti-allergic medication in preparation for another bloody scan on Thursday, so you’ll just have to be patient. Hard to believe, but there really are some things more important in my life than this nonsense.

Resuming tomorrow….

{143 comments }

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 21:00

@ Jonathan Mason 20:07 3.9.13

No, I’m illustrating no point. Details are discussed by professionals in the course of work. I do it myself every day. However, there would be concerns if a professional appeared to derive some personal satisfaction from hearing or taking part in such discussions, and actually enjoyed it so much that they did it on the internet in their spare time – even in discussions where no such details are required. As I said, it is not the words which are creepy in themselves, but your satisfaction in writing such.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 21:13

Mina, I asked the question about the physical matters. I am sorry. Let’s move on.

I also just want to mention regarding the supposed perverse practices of Roman Emperors (Claudius) that we don’t know how true such histories are. Then, as now, a convenient way to discredit somebody- particularly posthumously- was to accuse them of repellent practises and desires. Damnatio memoriae, and all that.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 21:30

@IanI stated quite some time back that the lack of physical evidence had been dealt with in court already – the girl had been examined and was totally undamaged. However, the prosecution stated that it didn’t matter if she had not been raped in the true sense of the word – a little girl might THINK that she had if there had been a simulation that came close.

LucozadeSeptember 3, 2013 at 22:12

Mina Field,

Re: “I stated quite some time back that the lack of physical evidence had been dealt with in court already – the girl had been examined and was totally undamaged. However, the prosecution stated that it didn’t matter if she had not been raped in the true sense of the word – a little girl might THINK that she had if there had been a simulation that came close.”

So the girl was still believed to be a ‘virgin’, is that what they were trying to determine?

@CharlotteOral rape. The complainant says that this happened and that this was the worst thing. Physically can’t be disproved.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:31

Seems like Suetonius is the culprit in his master work The Twelve Caesars. One has to admit that clearly he was no great fan of Claudius, whose reputation, like Savile’s took a beating posthumously. Claudius was, however, promoted to the position of god, a fate Savile seems unlikely to share.

Re: “I also just want to mention regarding the supposed perverse practices of Roman Emperors (Claudius) that we don’t know how true such histories are. Then, as now, a convenient way to discredit somebody- particularly posthumously- was to accuse them of repellent practises and desires. Damnatio memoriae, and all that”

That’s a great point, the same thing happened to both the likes of Anne Boleyn, who was accused of cheating on the king with a string of men – including her own brother (the icing on the cake) and Marie Antionette, who was accused of all sorts of weird sexual practices, including lesbianism and the icing on the cake (the one that upset her the most), molesting her own son – and her son was actually kept in the bastille and bullied into making the accusation against her apparently, though I think they eventually dropped that one when they could see it was upsetting her, as she was still going to be beheaded anyway.

It looks as though this game is as old as the hills, lol…

Jonathan MasonSeptember 4, 2013 at 01:09

@Lucozade, @Ian

I agree that Suetonius may have traduced Claudius, however my underlying point is that there are all kinds of perversions that normal people don’t know about and could never imagine, but which are familiar to the courts that deal with sex offenders and that given the vague language that is allowed to be reported, we as readers of newspaper Web sites and blogs cannot always be sure what is being talked about. Hence jurors are in a much better position than we are to judge the truth of allegations, and indeed to know what has been alleged.

Due to the factors outlined in another of my posts, I can see a situation arising where the jury dismisses the charges and then there is a huge press outcry on behalf of the “victims” who were not believed. The Barrister Blog takedown of the recent Polly Toynbee article just shows how extreme this process can be.

And you’ve the option on a toothless kiss for good luck for Thursday, though I know you’ll be keen to pass on that one!

carol42September 3, 2013 at 18:05

The whole story sounds like something she has read, sure I heard the Teddy story before. I believe in the earlier allegation there was no physical evidence, I would expect some damage if she was raped as a small child. I would also expect her mother to have picked up obvious signs during bath times, maybe I am too cynical but after the Savile allegations I don’t believe any of the recent cases. Funny how it is only people with money who are being accused! very surprised that none of the really famous stars like Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger etc. have been accused, they must have had underage groupies throwing themselves at them and they have a lot more money.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:23

You are spot on, Carol. If she was raped at six years of age, very likely there would have been blood, perhaps on her undergarments or bed linens and here would be questions as to whether the mother saw it, what she did, and why she didn’t go to the police.

Probably all this comes under the heading of restricted evidence.

One can see why there is restricted evidence as one does not want a trial to become a kind of pornography fest for those who get a kick out of that kind of thing. But on the other hand this goes back to why organizations like the BBC are not really qualified to deal with these matters. If they cannot repeat the kind of evidence that courts restrict, then they are confined to vague generalizations like “and then he put out the light and sexually abused me” which would be the starting point in court, not the end of the story, and which lends itself very easily to innuendo and manipulation of TV (or print) journalists who probably don’t want to get into interviewing the allegators in depth about sexual “abuse” and matters like blood on the sheets for fear of tarnishing themselves in the process.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:34

Couple of points.

Firstly, something that bothers me. I am not a doctor, nor have any expertise. But I have always been under the impression that a child’s body cannot tolerate a normal penetration without damage- particularly anal, as is often claimed in child abuse cases- without damage. It’s not something one relishes contemplating, but I wonder what the truth of it is. My only experience here is a (very distressing) examination I had as a child due to bowel problems. Apparently the specialist only had one finger up my bum but it felt like a whole hand. Still makes me feel queasy. I just wouldn’t think it possible for an adult male to rape a child in either area without causing physical tearing, etc? Does not the vagina enlarge at puberty specifically to make it sexually functional? I appreciate by the way that this is a bit near the knuckle and apologise for this.

Secondly, it seems ridiculous to censor court cases “in case somebody gets off on the evidence”. This seems to me to be of the same water as “you can’t film your children’s sports day in case a paedophile sees it and is aroused”. This means all we get are these euphemisms. It is getting literally as bad as Victorian speech, with women referring to everything between the neck and the knees as “the liver”. Everything now is just the word “abuse”. Which could mean anything.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:56

The court dealt yesterday with the issue of the lack of physical evidence of rape. They agreed that a child might mistake a close encounter for ‘the real thing’. Sorry for the prudish terminology here, but whilst gritty details are not a problem in my working life, I draw the line when it comes to my personal computer and the keystrokes in its memory.

I wonder how old the “child” actually is now anyway. I had the impression at one time they were over 20 now but might be wrong.

Just on the subject of suppressed information though, it really is a nonsense anyway sometimes. I recall that in the horrible Daniel Pelka case they made a huge mystery over whether the sibling who tried to protect the poor kid was male or female, then the Daily Mail published a pixellated photo of the two of them, but only pixellated out the *face* of the older sibling and not the big bunches of clearly blond female hair. It’s really all a matter of creating mystery I think, where the CPS try to make the case look so awesome and *important* by probably very inconsequential “redactions”. Piffle and legalististic paffle. I doubt there is any actual “physical evidence” whatsoever in this matter. It’ll just be a story that must not be roughly challenged for fear of hurting the feelings of the [alleged] victim.

carol42September 3, 2013 at 20:39

Meant to add, good luck with the scan Anna, I get my results on Friday so having another bout of scanxiety, I will let you know if all is well.Carol

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:36

@ Moor

I wonder how old the “child” actually is now anyway. I had the impression at one time they were over 20 now but might be wrong.

I think if you look carefully at Mina’s posts on this thread, you will find the information you seek and a great deal moor.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:41

@Moor Larkin

‘I wonder how old the child now is’

She is 17. she was 15 when she first made the allegations.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:04

These are good points, Ian. I have worked in the sex offender industry and used to own textbooks of the literature of the subject, but you simply don’t find this kind of information available even to professionals. However one point should be remembered, which is that the legal profession does not always use words like “rape” in the same sense as a lay person, and since the evidence from these cases is apparently restricted to the press, then we don’t always know what they are talking about. For example I have read that the Emperor Claudius used to like to be “entertained” by unweaned babies that were used for sexual purposes. This might meet the definition of “rape” and “penetration” under UK law without involving the vagina or the anus. My ten-month old daughter has repeatedly experimented with sucking my nipples, so far without any success whatsoever, and puts everything in her mouth. However if anyone did anything sexual to her, I would kill them on a matter of principle.

In the kind of situation you are talking about damage might depend on issues like whether a lubricant was used, and how well-equipped the offender was, and how deep the penetration, and how carefully the orifice is dilated. My four-year-old step daughter passes fairly decent sized turds in the toilet, that might be similar in diameter to an some adult penises, if that is anything to go by. However the anus is designed for one way traffic, (though persons of a certain persuasion might argue the point).

I hope this is not encroaching too much into the area of restricted evidence. Anna, delete it if you think it is not appropriate.

But, yes, I think bleeding would be very likely be associated with penile penetration of either orifice, though one cannot be certain that would be the case every time.

Not sure why you seem to relish all this graphic sexual content stuff. To me its a bit creepy I’m afraid.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 20:07

@Mina

I was just responding to another poster and I said that if Anna thinks it is out of place, she can delete it. As a broader point, I don’t think the majority of the public understand the detailed evidence that courts have to deal with in these kind of cases. And as an even broader point you are illustrating my thesis that most people are too squeamish to be able to address these kind of matters objectively, which, after all is why we apparently have restricted evidence, and yet these are the kind of details that medical professionals, investigators, etc. have to deal with daily.

It is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you have given information on this blog that has enabled me to identify (I am fairly sure) the names of the allegator and the allegator’s mother–but I am discreet enough not to spell them out.

WellwisherSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:18

I agree with your comments, something doesn’t sit right with this. If a young child is sexually abused it is well documented that they would act out…meaning that her mother or teachers would notice a change in behaviour or more sexually provocative play with toys or school friends. It’s something that would be noticed at such a young age and teachers are very experienced at what signs to look out for. The schools and teachers have to be so vigilant and mst report any unusual change in behaviour etc directly to Social Services, even if a child is bullied at school social services are now informed. So, I find it quite peculiar at what has been tweeted in way of testimony today especially from the mother. Le Vell does not seem to be the outright ‘religious’ type in my opinion and I could be wrong but when the defence stated that the mother was into spiritualism and then referring back to the girl stating that le vell “was getting rid of the evil inside” It does make me wonder. Also, being a mother myself I would take my child straight to the police station and make a complaint rather than taking her to a ‘healer’ as my first port of call.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:13

@Moor

OK, I have thought about this and here goes.

Le Vell (Turner) was married for 25 years to an actress and had a son and daughter with her. Shortly after the marriage ended in 2011 he was accused of raping a child.

From the evidence in the court it seems that the child was under the same roof at night as Le Vell over a period of several years during which time he was married. The court evidence printed by the press nowhere says what relationship Le Vell had to this mother and daughter, or how he met them. Apparently this is considered restricted evidence. The allegator is exactly the same age as his daughter. Is it possible that this is really all about an incest allegation that the public is being kept in the dark about? The jury will know, but we won’t.

carol42September 3, 2013 at 23:38

If this is indeed the case it casts a possible new light on the case. It is far from unknown for vengeful ex wives to make such accusations and convince the child to make such complaints. usually to prevent contact with the father. It will make it very difficult for him as he has to accuse his own daughter of lying abetted by his ex wife if indeed it is them. I had been puzzled as to how he could have access to a child to commit the alleged offences, if so it may go some way to explaining why the initial case was dropped for lack of evidence, at the time of the divorce? then, with all the recent publicity after Jimmy Savile the idea that having another go might just pay off. If this is the case and it is not true I cannot think of anything more evil than a mother doing that to her child het alone her husband.

LucozadeSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:47

Jonathan Mason,

Ah got you…

And also a newborn has a hole in it’s skull so that it’s head can squeeze together to make coming out easier…?

Re: “Does the vagina enlarge at puberty specifically to make it sexually functional”

I would imagine so, but more importantly probably to make it big enough for a baby to pass through – that is what it’s there for afterall, lol…

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:35

I will probably get hammered for saying this if it offends people, but I believe that around the time of birth a woman releases certain hormones that help to relax the ligaments of the pelvis so that the baby’s head can pass and also helps to make the vaginal tube more elastic. The main hormone concerned is called Relaxin.

Giles2008September 4, 2013 at 03:26

Oh we have all seen the “Teddy Bear” routine before.The BBC also used it on their report of the British Airways pilot in Africa.From the Damien Day school of reporting!!

In the case of LaVelle a long serving soap opera actor, the trial started yesterday, which is why it is so topical. Google his name and Daily Mail for various articles.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:16

Sorry, Michael Le Vell is his correct stage name, and he has his own page on Wikipedia.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:56

So, is anyone getting in touch with Paul Connew? Has he been asked to speak with Alison Levitt, or to those who carried out the Pollard Inquiry? Would he be prepared to communicate with Anna?

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:49

Back with Savile, regarding particular allegations, I remember in the initial tranche of TV testimony there was a woman with a story of being raped in his caravan on holiday, along with a girl she had made friends with. I recall finding her testimony rather convincing (purely emotionally). Do we know any more about that one?

Just having typed that, is it just me or are there a surprising amount of caravans involved in all this?

Moor, thanks. I remember spending half an hour or so in Photoshop fiddling with that image of Jimmy to read his tracksuit slogan at the time, and discussing it somewhere on the internet as fixing the picture as 1976, but can’t remember where I discussed that now. It was because my “alarm bells” were clanging off the wall once Haut la Garenee was woven into the story. It’s now one of those places in the “abuse mythos” like Roswell for UFOs.

Didn’t know that she was a “survivor”. I tend to treat all members of that movement with extreme suspicion because it’s basically a cult. Like I said, at the time I found her testimony convincing (and that is no test anyway, of course) but if she’s used to sitting around in consciousness raising sessions that would be second nature anyway.

Margaret JervisSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:23

Just as I linked http://www.markpendergrast.com/ the man himself has joined us @markpendergrast Any Raccoonistas a dab hand at precis to oblige?Where is the definitive 1000word overview of #savilisation for unsuspecting aliens? Any suggestions? Anything in the mainstream press? Must be somewhere.

I am new to this blog. I’ve written about false allegations of sexual abuse and am interested, but I live in the USA and haven’t followed this case. It would be very helpful to anyone new to the blog if you would post a good summary and intro to each case you’re talking about. It would give context to the detailed on-going coverage. As it is, I don’t have time to read through all of this and try to figure out what’s actually going on.

Duncan DisorderlySeptember 3, 2013 at 16:21

Mark,

I actually read your book ‘Victims of Memory’ a few months ago and I was very impressed with it: I am interested in the subject matter. There are two cases being talked about on this blog posting: the main one is that of Jimmy Savile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile), dead TV presenter and charity fund raiser, and somebody who supposedly abused hundreds of women, boys and girls. ‘Anna Raccoon’, and largely everyone commenting here regards this as grossly unfair, as no proper investigation was carried out and there are many inconsistencies with stories that are in the public.

The other story people are commenting on today is that of actor Michael Le Vell, who is on trial for allegedly sexually abusing a girl from the age of six. This may well be a case of Recovered Memory, although it is not clear at this stage from the details we have.

Margaret JervisSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:25

Thank you Duncan – had forgotten the wiki use.

Margaret JervisSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:35

@Duncan ‘recovered memory’ is rarely claimed in UK trials – no limitation period to overcome by ‘recent discovery’ – it would spoil the party – does happen in civil claims though – where there is a limitation period that has to be tolled.

Not sure it’s exactly a precis, but it’s where I began formally last December.

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/introduction.htmlThis Blog will become a meditation and concentration upon what seems the oddest combination of UK media and politics that I have ever experienced. It’s a matter that has almost no importance when set against the monumental events of the 21st Century so far, such as 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, but in it’s very triviality lies it’s fascination. Why has it been deemed of such importance that every organ of the British state seems to have been in complete concurrence over it. There has been no questioning of the new History that has been written in the barely two months since “the Savile Allegations” first fully hit the mainstream press and broadcasters in October 2012.

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 16:40

Read this – good introduction – no short pracis will suffice I’m afraid – the subject matter (Jimmy Savile) is too important for that !

““Rather than putting one more set of responsibilities on the shoulders of hard-working teachers, it should be possible to encourage schools to develop working relationships with the many excellent charities and organisations that used trained experts to deliver the right messages to young people in appropriate and high impact ways.”

Ian B, don’t you mean “no sex” education? Since when did the little darlings ever get instruction on how to please a partner, rather than just how to avoid nasty social diseases and pregnancy? The NSPCC holds the feminist view that boys and men are just rapists-in-waiting, and that girls and women of any age are wilting delicate flowers with no agency at all. At least viewing porn, they get to see the mechanics which parents and teachers are not very good at explaining.

The current thrust of these “charities” is that adolescents should have no sexual activity at all, and that even a French kiss, taken on the eve of your 16th birthday, is likely to ruin your whole life from the deep, disturbing psychological impact of such intimacy. The girls are taught that even if a boy looks at you in a way you find undesirable, it is equivalent to an act of vile aggression.

That’s what we have with poor Jimmy. The metamorphosing of “a friendly uncle” who puts his arm around you into a caricature monster of depravity, thus publicly setting the standard for the unwashed masses to follow. The idea is that men should have no contact whatsoever with children, and that women are helpless damsels who need their decisions taken for them.

What man would now want to be a teacher, or a care home helper, or even a DJ or a pop star?

They’re going to be kept at school until 17 and very soon until 18, I was reading, so being over the age of consent, perhaps Upper Sixth sex orgies could be convened – with appropriate adult supervision and “Practicals”, as we used to express it……….

It’s gonna be brave new world m’dears……

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:44

They’re keen to edge up the age of consent to 18- in line with the USA- anyway. 16 is an anomaly, as far as they’re concerned. Hence the ridiculous portrayal of their junior activist “Yas” as a “17 year old schoolgirl”.

All the comment threads at the Telegraph were deleted within a couple of hours, due to the universal chorus of disapproval.

@ They’re keen to edge up the age of consent to 18 @This would probably be a very logical thing to do. It does seem bizarre that we think people under 18 can handle sexual relationships but a pint of beer would be way too much for them to deal with….

More importantly for the average man in the street, I have come more and more to conclude that the whole paedo-panic of the late Nineties stemmed largely as a reaction to the push to equalisation of gay sex ages to 16. The average Joe thinks about all this very differently to the Metromen and women and I think this is where the grass-root support comes from. They cannot work against the gay age alone, if for no other reason than that they would probably be deemed homophobic and be prosecuted, so they’d rather see a rolling-back of the whole thing to 18, where they would feel happier that their young sons must really know their own mind, and in these days of equality, what’s sauce for the gander must be sauce for the goose.

It dawned on me a while back that bizarrely it has been the Tories who started this trend to lowered the male age of consent with Edwina Currie of all people. I suspect that in the Collective Conscious of the un/working classes this has been identified as a sign that Tories were after the “young boys”, (especially as they’re identified with “public schools”) and this is why the Haters keep banging on about Tory paedophilia going back to ‘fatcher. Labourites have been only too happy to jump on this populist bandwagon too of course, for their own straightforward political reasons and everyone has forgotten (or are too frightened to say) what it is that they’re really all scared of. If my social analysis is correct it’s a sweet irony that the current panic about protecting young girls is really a displacement of the wish to protect youngish “boys”.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:11

That is a great point, Moor. I must say it had never occurred to me, but yes, the law now makes sixth-form boys legal prey for adult men, which was never the case when I were a nipper.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:19

Moor-

This would probably be a very logical thing to do.

Only logical in producing a whole new cohort of “offenders” to deal with.

As to the paedopanic, it is not some spontaneous public phenomenon. It dates back to the 80s and even before that, as a reaction by particular groups against the new sexual “liberalism” of the 1960s+, in the USA- particularly, on the “Right”, religious fundamentalists and on the “Left”, the Second Wave Feminist movement which arose entirely as a reaction against sexual liberty. Added into the mix was the Therapy Movement, with a useful model that all adult psychological disorder is caused by childhood traumas of a Freudian (sexual) nature, providing a ready source of “victims”, a liberal sprinkling of nutters and conspiracy theorists and, perhaps most crucially, the new media channel of revelatory shows like Oprah. You then add in law enforcement agencies eager to bolster a threatened “mutaween” role as old sex offences like homosexuality and pornography were falling away, leaving moral cops with nothing to do. There was even a risk of prostitution legalisation- basically the whole First Wave Feminist legal structure of sexual controls was collapsing. There was also, in the 1970s a New York DA looking for a crusade, which started the “CHild Porn” panic (small numbers of tatty books from the Netherlands, a tiny industry- I had an article about all that but regrettably didn’t keep it out of the fear a lot of us have here of having things on our computers- but IIRC a cottage industry most republishing nudist photos with youngsters in, with a tiny turnover, was hyped up as a billion dollar plague of child porn).

So you’ve got all these constituencies with a common interest, thus uniting bizarre bedfellows like rabid Moral Majority Fundies with marxist lesbian feminists. It gave them all an “issue” to fight back with, and we got Satanic Ritual Abuse and everything that came after it, and it was spread across the Atlantic to us, our activists and media joined the bandwagon, and here we are. As with most of the culture war, it basically comes down to us doing things because the Americans do. It doesn’t really have a local, British, origin as such.

Origins are always an endless chain, but why this obsession with “age” alone. Nobody has any big issue about sex – just age.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:49

but why this obsession with “age” alone. Nobody has any big issue about sex – just age.

Oh, but they have. They regrouped around “child protection” as one of their old strategems from the Victorian/Progressive Era, but the movement is generally anti-sexual, hence we’ve got the old anti-prostitution and anti-porn stuff, and trying to convince girls to only have sex within marriage, except they’ve crossed out “marriage” and written over it in crayon “a committed relationship”.

They’re very good at what they do, the Progressives, because they’ve got lots of practise. You always push from a bridgehead, one step at a time. Child porn is the bridgehead against all porn, and sexual abuse is the bridgehead against all “loose” sexual morals. This is why they’re so desperate to discredit the 1970s, because it represents a brief period when they lost their moral hegemony, so they’re desperate to prove that it was, as a consequence, a period of endless sexual horrors.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 19:53

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if what Mina has said in an unrelated post is right, and I think it is, then this case is not about age at all but about something much more serious, and the great British public is being massively misled and has been for some time.

They are the ones I perhaps meant by “Metromen and women”. My intended rumination was why there is such a groundswell of support from the general public, down to the great unspelt/unwashed. I’m not sure they are against sex but they do seem to have become very paranoid about age all of a sudden. I agree that it has all the ingredients of the “perfect storm”, combining interests from all flanks.

LucozadeSeptember 3, 2013 at 20:19

Moor Larkin,

Re: “It does seem bizarre that we think people under 18 can handle sexual relationships but a pint of beer would be way too much for them to deal with….”

Most 16 year olds can handle a pint of beer, but I do actually believe it is a lot easier to remember to take contraception daily and remember to use a condom than work out what your limit is with things like wine and spirts which can often result in a few embarrassing drunken episodes before that is worked out. And your mental ‘age’ goes out the window when when seriously under the influence of alcohol anyway.

I think drinking sensibly requires a lot more responsibility than having sex sensibly and don’t feel that the two things are nesseseraily comparable.

Same goes for voting, to know who the right person to vote for requires some knowledge of politics, to know how to have sex safely just requires knowledge of how babies are made (almost everybody over 12 knows this), where to get contraception and that there is a risk of STI’s, so how to try and prevent/go to get them treated.

I don’t see how something as simple as that can be placed in the same ball park as knowing how to handle your drink or learning to drive/driving safely – the risks for the latter 2 are a lot greater (in my opinion) and there is a lot more to learn about them.

Also sex is natural, those other things are man made and most girls are finished with puberty by 16, I never met one that wasn’t when I was that age. Most will have had to deal with their periods on a monthly basis for about 4 or 5 years by this point…

I think it would be almost unbelievable to have a law in place that forbade 17 year olds from having sex if they want to with whomever they chose over that age just to ‘protect’ a tiny minority that are for some reason in need of ‘protection’, most 17 year olds are not in need of that kind of ‘protection’ at all, and I don’t think they’d want it…

@LucozadeIn his autobiography, Jimmy Savile writes:“I have a disjointed sort of theory that all girls, in relation to their male opposites, are 2,000 years old when they are born. They might not know what makes a car go but they certainly have a very shrewd and intuitive idea of what makes a man go. Or stop.”An interesting and very short last sentence, I thought…..

LucozadeSeptember 3, 2013 at 20:47

Moor Larkin,

Re: “In his autobiography, Jimmy Savile writes:“I have a disjointed sort of theory that all girls, in relation to their male opposites, are 2,000 years old when they are born. They might not know what makes a car go but they certainly have a very shrewd and intuitive idea of what makes a man go. Or stop.”An interesting and very short last sentence, I thought…..”

I can’t speak for boys because I have never been one, though I sometimes get the impression that they are cannier than girls in many ways, girls often seem more ‘sensible’/less willing to take risks…

Ellen CoulsonSeptember 3, 2013 at 13:55

Drilly (Miss Draycott as she was) categorically denies that Saville ever went to Norman Lodge. In fact no one would have been allowed to just walk into Norman Lodge. Even if a door was unlocked which is doubtful Miss Harris would have been close by and so far as I am aware the only telephone was is the office which was next to dining room. Indeed if Miss Jones askeds Miss G to make JS a cup of tea it was more likely to be in her own house which was next to Norman Lodge.

As for Miss A did JS have a Rolls Royce in 2000 and did he use it to tow a caravan? Why did she keep the crucifix?

For what it’s worth, Keri/Karin describes Savile arriving in a “low-slung sportscar” so presumably someone showed her a picture of his old e-type from back in the day. An e-type towing a caravan sounds even moor mirthful…….

Sally StevensSeptember 4, 2013 at 00:55

I also loved “I had the autograph book full of signatures of all the celebrities I met at Duncroft,” bla bl, but she somehow ‘mislaid’ it. What celebrities, dear? Is this where Meirion got hold of this ‘minor royalty and celebrities’ rubbish? There were NO celebrities beside Jimmy Savile in that time period, and when I was there, just James Robertson Justice and John Gregson, who were personal friends of Margaret Jones and Dr. Mason. One of the girls did note that Nyree Dawn Porter visited once. I saw the Duchess of Kent personally, and have the photo of her visit, and I know that in 1974 her daughter, Princess Alexandra, was at a fund raiser at the school, which Jimmy came to. Princess A was a patron of MIND I believe and continues as the same 40 years later. Margaret Jones has noted that Princess A was gushing in her greeting of Jimmy, and obviously held him in high esteem.

Bebe Roberts tried to whip up a campaign about J. R. Justice being a molester, and I immediately contacted MWT, expressing my outrage. He emailed me back that he was ‘not interested’ in JRJ. Course not, dead and broke when he died in 1975. Not interesting to MWT on those grounds alone. Let alone there was a phalanx of 60s girls ready to take that one on!

I have yet to hear from any of the 70s women why they did not immediately correct Bebe Roberts when she lied so blatantly.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 13:54

British culture has been infused with tea drinking since the occupation of India made the narcotic “weed” a major import trafficked to the dismal isle in fast moving “clippers” that could easily evade the customs luggers of the time. Having consumed all the tea in China, the Brits started to grow it in plantations in northern India and then forced the Chinese to smoke opium instead of tea.

The effect of the drug is to give the addict the superhuman ability to tolerate and overcome adversity such as night bombing, Test Match Specials, or Bank Holiday weekends for which Britons are renowned, also known as the Dunkirk spirit.

More than 99% of Britons are known to use the drug, usually prepared by pouring boiling water over chopped leaves in a special container called a “pot”, then covered with a “cosy”, while the intoxicants leach into water which turns brown or green forming an elixir that ifs usually sipped mixed with “silver top” cow milk extracted from the glands of domestic cattle, and sugar cane crystals. A frequent invitation to participate in the drug may take the form of the question “Shall I put the kettle on?” which refers to the boiling of the water to make the infusion. If a person of either sex asks “Shall I be mother”, this indicated that they wish to pour the prepared tea into individual cups.

After taking a dose it is normal to remark “Ah, I needed that! Nothing like a good cuppa!” Medically, a cuppa may be prescribed for treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome, death of a close relative, loss of a limb, failing ‘A’ levels, etc.

[from Wikipedia].

charlotteSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:46

Please don’t do a similar reply again Jonathan. It’s not good I should laugh so heartily. I’ve had to put the kettle on, I need tea to calm me down. Only peppermint tea though.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 12:51

Just regarding the “why” thing, when the Savilocalypse first broke, I pretty immediately did a websearch for Karin Ward, found her book, took a look and, it read to me like a typical recovered memory tract- the relentless and lurid tales of constant abuse and, in particular, a dedication to a particular therapist, and so on. Besides all else, if the life story in it were true, Freddie Starr making a joke about her tits would be, by comparison, like a concentration camp survivor remembering stubbing their toe as significant injury. That was one of the things that set my alarm bells ringing on all this, because I’ve been interested in all this kind of thing since SRA and watched it develop.

It seems to me that despite the “debunking” of SRA, we have a major and growing “therapist” problem in this country, with “abuse”, “trafficking” and so on. So maybe that is at the root of things here.

As you will see tomorrow, the Keri saga gets more and more interesting…

Margaret JervisSeptember 3, 2013 at 13:02

@Ian Well I don’t know about the absolute collapse of SRA myth if you check accounts at ‘one in Four (london)’. Charity commission. Seems the charity, the Met and Sinason are working together and have been for a while. Think it begins on the accounts around 2008 – think I didn’t go beyond 2009 – now based in Surrey. Run by Christiane Sanderson – psychologist – heavy duty veteran of ‘recovered memory’.

However, #savilisation does continue to unravel, but not sure we’re at #savilocollapse yet. #savilocolypse? Is that NOW!?

Keri admits that due to medication she fabricated much of the detail about Duncroft, for example she’d recall the gist of a meeting and created a conversation based on her perception.

Re Keri’s reaction to Freddie Starr in interviews she referred to being ‘humiliated’ by his alleged comments about her breasts. In her book she describes whilst at Duncroft going to work at a metal factory, where she claims a group of men again made comments about her small breasts. The fact she remembered the factory incident 40 years later indicates something?

@ The fact she remembered the factory incident 40 years later indicates something? @Reading Pollard it seems clear that her insistence that she’d visited a show called Clunk-Click that the BBC wallahs had never heard of, rather than Jim’ll Fix It, which they seemed sure she must mean, seems to have led to her holding them even moor in thrall, as to her recall……… I think……..

Ellen CoulsonSeptember 4, 2013 at 15:09

Her account of the hells angel/biker is also untrue. I am informed by another ex Duncroft girl that he (Tramp) was the boyfriend of another inmate of Duncroft, Janice, who kept a photo of him and they were arrested while trying to go to Ireland!

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 11:33

Here’s another thing that needs to change : strict reporting restrictions should be applied on cases of this nature. Sky news is running ‘Live’ updates from M Le Vell’s hearing. Whatever the outcome here, he is buggered for life. They’ve now got to the, he smelled of alcohol bit, really do we need to know this NOW ? I am quite disgusted

Ooh… Thanks for the link. Today!I’m tending to think that in these cases the more we know the better. They’re just onto “exorcising the house” now and how Le Vell seemed like he was “possessed”. Jesus H!No wonder the poor fellow reportedly has his head slumped on his arms.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 11:53

Sounds like the girl’s mother is a lunatic, er, vulnerable. Interesting to see if the mother is called as a witness.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 11:58

But important that the case is being covered in full, rather than all the testimony being covered up as is all too common with the UK press. If you read Barrister Blog, it now seems that based on the court transcript, almost all the remarks about barrister Robert Colover saying a girl of 13 was “predatory in all her actions” are false reporting and that The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee article on the topic a pack of lies from beginning to end.

It is the lack of proper verbatime reporting that makes these kind of travesties possible and credible.

12:39 PMTwitterTom Parmenter @TomSkyNewsVictim’s mother in witness box but not behind a curtain. We can’t identify her though for legal reasons.CORRECTION Alleged victim’s mother in witness box but not sat behind curtain – we can’t identify her for legal reasons

Why does the cynic in me think that its probably the bits like ‘actually I was lying’ or ‘it never happened’ that we’re not allowed to hear…..

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 15:34

Maybe so. I am lazy, but has it been explained to the court how Turner was involved with this family and sleeping in their house, or they in his house?

Or could the evidence be something about the mother or daughter being in a mental hospital at some time?

I guess it doesn’t matter if we hear the evidence, as long as the judge and jury get it all, but you can see why often there may be a huge disconnect between what newspaper readers think they know about the facts of a case and what the jury actually sees, hears, and knows.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 15:52

Well, it does matter. It used to be a basic principle of the law that courts should be public so that everyone could see that justice is being done. All that’s seen as old hat now, of course.

General MayhemSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:31

It comes down to the quality of the defence, really. If they are up to the job then they should be able to show the other side of the story and if the evidence is wanting make sure the court gets the full story.

Margaret JervisSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:49

Agree up to a point @general. But there’s also the judge – and disclosure and why are the CPS and police hellbent on getting results in these dingbat cases anyway?

Sally StevensSeptember 4, 2013 at 01:53

I did a little research on counsel for Starr. He’s more than adequate. Been with Freddie since the first bail in February.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:38

@Jonathan Mason

The questions you pose are answered behind the veil of the reporting restrictions. Acrimonious divorces sometimes get very nasty indeed. These two sentences Are Not Related.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:13

Thanks Mina. Glad to here that they are currently unrelated.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:36

But presumably the jury will have all the information that is being withheld from the public? Which, if true, makes the whole thing even more of a complete travesty as far as reporting goes.

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 18:41

Sorry about that typo. I am so embarrassed. For some reason my fingers often run ahead of my brain and type “here” and “there” in place of “hear” and “their” and I don’t always catch it before hitting the submit button.

Jonathan, we are most likely not allowed to hear the details of any alleged sexual assault.

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 15:42

@Moor how do u know that they’ve edited your first tweet – how can you see your tweets cos we can’t ….. ?

MudpluggerSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:12

I understand that in the particular situation of this case, reporting the mother’s evidence verbatim would effectively identify the alleged victim, hence the lack of reporting.

charlotteSeptember 3, 2013 at 23:36

shouldn’t she be called ‘the complainant?’

PeterSeptember 3, 2013 at 11:31

‘Savilisation’? Savilation / Savilating might fit better.

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 11:21

I wonder WHAT made these women go to the police in 2007 ? I can’t remember if anyone has sussed that one out yet, and is this the ONLY time these women have done this ? I think that there will be a statute of limitations applied in due course, after all, the law has already brought in the ‘success’ fee ! I believe that ‘victims’ SHOULD be heard at the time that they are being abused not 40 years later and certainly NOT if the perpetrator is dead. This is where the real help and support needs to come in. No one should be afraid to stand up to any bastard bully where ever they find them. Tell me that these charities etc really do offer support and not just an out of hours “get lost” message on an answerphone !

Miss ‘B’ who claimed to be a witness, not a victim, was the one who went to the police with lurid tales in 2007, and then insisted that they contact the other girls she named – one of whom was moved to say she would like to punch Ms ‘B’ and ‘wanted nothing to do with Friends Reunited’ – why she should have mentioned Friends Runited where Fiona had held sway for some years I really have no idea…..

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 12:26

Thanks Anna – why is ‘Miss B’s’ identity being protected ? if she is not a ‘victim’ ? No matter, we will know who these people are in due course ! Still, I’m intrigued as to, why then, why 2007, I’m sure the FReunited files are safely hidden somewhere as evidence ?

@rabbitawayI don’t feel I need to know “who these people are” other than their relationships to one another and their long-standing associations. They can be as anonymous as I am, but that anonymity should be consistent. It is also shambolic that the top law officers in the land either don’t know the obvious linkages or are wilfully blind to them. They seem to have entirely misunderstood the allegory of the blindfold on that Old Bailey woman. The way things are going they should add earplugs to the statue….

rabbitawaySeptember 3, 2013 at 13:24

Why Aye Mr Larkin – ‘Natural’ Justice appears to have disappeared from our ‘justice’ system. BTW I DO want to know these people’s identities because, only then can I be assured that these people actually exist and that each of them is a seperate entity. I for one do not trust any of the people running these sham ops !

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 13:05

@rabbitawayI too have wondered what happened in 2007. Was it just an idea that arose out of all the get-togethers on Friends Reunited, perhaps? Is it just a case of Fiona (if it was her that approached the police – and we know she had the forged letter) being a limelight seeking fraudster, maybe?

According to Paul Connew a story was brought forward back in 1994 and the reasons sounded very similar.

“One curious thing about Connew’s story is that he seems to be describing “two women” who share the same attributes as those behind both the 2007 police investigation of Savile and the 2012 itv Exposure show. Looking back to 1994, Connew describes the events thus: a relative of a woman in her mid-30′s, makes the initial approach to the newspaper. The woman in question was alleged to have been abused at a certain “childrens home”, when she was aged 14 to 15. Connew then says the Mirror tracked down another woman (the only person the first woman had kept track of). He goes on to say that the motivation of the first family stemmed from the fact that Jimmy Savile was “in the news” at the time. (This might relate to when he received his Kinghthood). Connew also says that “one of the women had drug problems” and so the newspaper lawyers were aware that this would hinder her making her a good impression in court, should a libel case be pursued by Savile. This story seems to bear a basic structural similarity to the story explored by the Levitt Report, in which a series of events between a Ms.B and a Ms.C are discussed”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/hitching-ride.html

Miss ‘B’ instigated the 2007 Surrey Police investigation as a witness not a victim, she described a scene involving a code word which the victim, who wanted to punch Ms ‘B’, had no recollection of. By the time of the Exposure programme Ms ‘B’ had herself become a victim.

Ian BSeptember 3, 2013 at 09:48

Pardon my idioticness here, but what is alluded to by the term “working girls”? Does it just mean girls at Duncroft who had outside jobs, or, er, “working girls” in the euphemistic sense, or what?

There may have been some ‘doubling up’ going on!I use the term in the sense that these were girls who had reached school leaving age – 16 at that time – received sufficient psychiatric treatment (Duncroft was the province of MIND at that time) and had been found a suitable job in the local town of Staines. They had a freedom we could only dream of – not only could they go out into the open world every day by virtue of their job, they were allowed money and could buy clothes and cigarettes (our perennial obsession!) as they wished. They could even bring boyfriends back to Norman Lodge to meet ‘Drilly’ and co – but not up to bedrooms of course.This made Norman Lodge a haven of all manner of things contraband to us – and out of the question for a Duncroft girl to have been allowed out to wander round there at will. Apart from anything else, the Norman Lodge girls would have complained bitterly!Which suggests to me that the complainant was a Norman Lodge resident herself…

Jonathan MasonSeptember 3, 2013 at 11:48

As I recall, according to her biography, Keri/Kerin was still at Norman Lodge when she was working at the factory and skipped work to visit the older art gallery owner in Staines who drugged and raped her. I wonder why HE has never been identified. Fortunately she was able to recover in time to get back to Norman Lodge for tea.

Re: “As I recall, according to her biography, Keri/Kerin was still at Norman Lodge when she was working at the factory and skipped work to visit the older art gallery owner in Staines who drugged and raped her. I wonder why HE has never been identified. Fortunately she was able to recover in time to get back to Norman Lodge for tea”

My she has had mighty bad luck where rape and sexual assault are concerned hasn’t she?

You’d think someone with that much bad luck must have some kind of curse on them or something…

Thank you for the concise dissection and for confirming my own conclusion that MsG and Fiona were one and the same.

“Is Ms.G actually Fiona? A couple of blogs ago I thought Ms.G might be the most famous Duncroftian, Keri/Karen Ward. This is the trouble with anonymity, individuals can become Legion.

The CPS Report says this about Ms.G: ‘I did not know at the time I met her that Ms G had participated in a television programme about Jimmy Savile. During that programme she made a number of allegations which go considerably further than those she made… in 2008. When I met her she made reference to having given him a “hand job” but said that she had refused to give him a “blow job”.’

If only the eminent QC had actually watched the TV show that had prompted her investigation in the first place, she would presumably have recognised her subject. The Law is never that simple it seems. Anyhow, one of the final words on Ms.G from the Levitt Report is tantamount to calling her a fibber.

Ms G’s evidence was that she did not go to Duncroft until after her fifteenth birthday (in fact, given that she says that she was living in Norman Lodge at the time, the likelihood is that she was sixteen or older; she has now confirmed that she thinks she was seventeen). I’m going for a lie-down. I have been invited into someone’s house – possibly a respected professional person and somehow I have ended up challenging her probity. But I seem not to be the first to do so, the CPS has done so if Fiona equals Ms.G. Is she? I think we should be told.

Even if they are different people Fiona’s story seems unbelievable anyway, just as she herself feared it would be. Nobody believed her in the past because originally she never told anyone, and now it seems more than possible that everyone she has told the story to since, has been told a different story. One thing about lies is that they are very hard to keep consistent, whereas the truth is, perhaps quite tediously, always the same. It’s 38 minutes and 35 seconds into Exposure and I still have about ten minutes of this dreadful stuff to sit through. Apparently Fiona is saying that she makes no abuse allegations against Gary Glitter. Well, she wouldn’t do that would she, after all – that celebrity is still alive.http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/exposition-pt10.html

Joe PublicSeptember 3, 2013 at 09:24

Just thanks, Anna, for your riveting contributions towards our system of Justice.

@Ian HillsThe BBC are on the case:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632247British Sikh girls are being preyed upon by gangs of Muslim men who subject them to horrific sexual abuse, a BBC Inside Out investigation has uncovered.

What a disgrace. I’m sure all the beleaguered fans of TOTP will also be interested to know the who, what and why of why we’ve had 17 editions locked in the archive forever that should have been repeated in the past 11 months and possibly cancelled at the end of the year, and I have to cover another “banned” JS edition this week – so I will be including links to these articles.

This is the kind of thing Private Eye should be doing – if they were actually doing the job they claim to be doing

JSSeptember 3, 2013 at 15:58

Private Eye has become essentially toothless and irrelevant even when it isn’t completely wrong..Once upon a time it was the only regular source of information on what the mainstream media weren’t reporting and fulfilled a valuable function but post internet it pales beside a multitude of blogs. PE looks far too close to the Westminster bubble and toes conventional knee-jerk lines on too many of the controversies of our age.On Savile, as well as too many other recent issues, PE has avoided the real stories and simply prodded round the edges, getting even those scraps wrong as often as they were right.

Joe PublicSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:42

Ian Hislop is firmly part of the “Establishment” now, and as such derives a substantial proportion of his income from Beeb game shows.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 08:16

Hmm, as you say, Anna, Miss G seems a conundrum. Does her claim document the fact that she ‘went to the police but they wouldn’t prosecute’? I’d have thought that this, if she were Miss G, would be mentioned – you, know….. to add to the severity of her ‘trauma’.I hope you start feeling better, and good luck for the scan.

Sadly, I think the end result of this use of child abuse as mainstream entertainment will be that the media will shy clear of child abuse altogether no matter who it is committed by. Children will be the ultimate victims, twice over.

Duncan DisorderlySeptember 3, 2013 at 10:23

I do not subscribe to the ‘alternative’ conspiracy theory that Savile was set up to be knocked down and so damage the credibility of accusers against senior public figures. As always, the evidence against people must be examined on it’s merits.

In any event, the press have proved themselves incapable of critically analysing claims against any named person. We will not miss much if they are cowed into not reporting anything.

Given that it has been accepted for decades that the vast bulk of “child abuse” happens within a family or within a “care-home” then all this naming/shaming will have no relevance to the reporting of that child abuse anyway. The issues of non-reported abuse and historical reportage all comes back to the emotional ties of the people at the time – the father has to accept the mother he loves is being abusive to his child, and vice versa, the granny has to recognise/accept the grandchild is not just making up stories and her own son is doing the unthinkable – the care-worker has to believe the worst of a colleague they have related to for months…… etc etc and on-infinitum.

This crap NSPCC campaign is really all about “stranger rape/abuse”, which everyone would report if they heard the slightest whisper of it, and this has always been the case. The bullshit idea that a fellow DJ would ignore Savile “raping teenagers” is just that – bullshit.

All the newspaper reportage of celebrity sex will make not one jot of difference to the woman looking at the man in her bed and wondering, “can it really be true?”….. perhaps after she has heard him questioning their young child in the other room that evening, asking her about what’s in her pants maybe….. – as per the current NSPCC “bright idea”. It really is a dreadful mess and getting worse by the day because of all the lying going on.

John PickworthSeptember 3, 2013 at 16:56

The bullshit idea that a fellow DJ would ignore Savile “raping teenagers” is just that – bullshit.

Quite an important insight if you think about it. Was Savile so loved – or feared, as the official legend would like us to believe – that his colleagues or co-workers wouldn’t, or daren’t, report him? The professional world of the DJ, radio, TV and the entertainment business in general is just like any other… someone would have seen a chance for advancement by alerting their bosses to the fact Savile has been helping himself to company paper-clips from the stationery cupboard, or worse.

Like you, I don’t believe for a moment that over 40 odd years no one would have seized an opportunity to do Savile down or to profit from his fall from grace. Unless of course they had nothing on him? Either he wasn’t the lecher we’re told he was or his behaviour was no worse than that of his peers… and bearing in mind we’re talking about the swinging sixties and beyond, perhaps this was the case.

Mina FieldSeptember 3, 2013 at 17:47

@John Pickworth

‘Was Savile so loved, or feared that….’

If you haven’t already done so, you might care to read Moor Larkin’s articles on exactly this question. He reveals BBC documents that show that JS’s status with the BBC was anything but that of a VIP.

John PickworthSeptember 4, 2013 at 01:29

Thanks Mina, I had read Moor Larkin’s articles… and I agree with the VIP theory. However, even if Savile had held an exulted position within the industry, someone eventually would have ratted him out and probably even more so if up on a pedestal. Gossip is a great career killer and I cannot believe there weren’t some who hated (or were jealous of) Savile enough to end his reign. The fact this didn’t happen leaves us with the obvious question, why?

And lets remember, that while the likes of Gary Glitter and Jonathan King etc had their adventures off the reservation; Savile was supposed to have been stalking the corridors of schools, hospitals and the BBC. If true, why did no one squeal? Or, might it just be that these events just didn’t happen?